Statism and Anarchy - United Diversity

19 Pages·2009·0.25 MB·English

Michail Bakunin
Statism and Anarchy
1873
The Anarchist Library
Contents
Critique of the Marxist Theory of the State . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Some Preconditions for a Social Revolution . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Preconditions for a Social Revolution in Russia . . . . . . . . . 15
2
Critique of the Marxist Theory of the State
There is no road leading from metaphysics to the realities of life. Theory and
fact are separated by an abyss. It is impossible to leap across this abyss by
what Hegel called a “qualitative jump” from the world of logic to the world of
nature and of real life.
The road leading from concrete fact to theory and vice versa is the method
of science and is the true road. In the practical world, it is the movement of
society toward forms of organization that will to the greatest possible extent
reflect life itself in all its aspects and complexity.
Such is the people’s way to complete emancipation, accessible to all — the
way of the anarchist social revolution, which will come from the people them-
selves, an elemental force sweeping away all obstacles. Later, from the depths
of the popular soul, there will spontaneously emerge the new creative forms of
social life.
The way of the gentlemen metaphysicians is completely different. Meta-
physician is the term we use for the disciples of Hegel and for the positivists,
and in general, for all the worshippers of science as a goddess, all those mod-
ern Procrusteans who, in one way or another, have created an ideal of social
organization, a narrow mold into which they would force future generations, all
those who, instead of seeing science as only one of the essential manifestations
ofnaturalandsociallife,insistthatalloflifeisencompassedintheirnecessarily
tentativescientifictheories. Metaphysiciansandpositivists, allthesegentlemen
whoconsiderittheirmissiontoprescribethelawsoflifeinthenameofscience,
are consciously or unconsciously reactionaries.
This is very easy to demonstrate.
Science in the true sense of that word, real science, is at this time within
reach of only an insignificant minority. For example, among us in Russia, how
manyaccomplishedsavantsarethereinapopulationofeightymillion? Probably
a thousand are engaged in science, but hardly more than a few hundred could
be considered first-rate, serious scientists. If science were to dictate the laws,
theoverwhelmingmajority,manymillionsofmen,wouldberuledbyoneortwo
hundred experts. Actually it would be even fewer than that, because not all
of science is concerned with the administration of society. This would be the
task of sociology — the science of sciences — which presupposes in the case of
a well-trained sociologist that he have an adequate knowledge of all the other
sciences. HowmanysuchpeoplearethereinRussia—inallEurope? Twentyor
thirty — and these twenty or thirty would rule the world? Can anyone imagine
a more absurd and abject despotism?
Itisalmostcertainthatthesetwentyorthirtyexpertswouldquarrelamong
themselves,andiftheydidagreeoncommonpolicies,itwouldbeattheexpense
of mankind. The principal vice of the average specialist is his inclination to
exaggerate his own knowledge and deprecate everyone else’s. Give him control
andhewillbecomeaninsufferabletyrant. Tobetheslaveofpedants—whata
destiny for humanity! Give them full power and they will begin by performing
on human beings the same experiments that the scientists are now performing
on rabbits and dogs.
We must respect the scientists for their merits and achievements, but in
order to prevent them from corrupting their own high moral and intellectual
standards, they should be granted no special privileges and no rights other
3
than those possessed by everyone — for example, the liberty to express their
convictions, thought, and knowledge. Neither they nor any other special group
shouldbegivenpoweroverothers. Hewhoisgivenpowerwillinevitablybecome
an oppressor and exploiter of society.
But we are told: “Science will not always he the patrimony of a few. There
will come a time when it will be accessible to all.” Such a time is still far away
and there will be many social upheavals before this dream will come true, and
eventhen,whowouldwanttoputhisfateinthehandsofthepriestsofscience?
It seems to us that anyone who thinks that after a social revolution every-
bodywillbeequallyeducatedisverymuchmistaken. Science,thenasnow,will
remain one of the many specialized fields, though it will cease to be accessible
only to a very few of the privileged class. With the elimination of class distinc-
tions, education will be within the reach of all those who will have the ability
and the desire to pursue it, but not to the detriment of manual labor, which
will be compulsory for all.
Available to everyone will be a general scientific education, especially the
learning of the scientific method, the habit of correct thinking, the ability to
generalizefrom facts andmake more orless correct deductions. But ofencyclo-
pedic minds and advanced sociologists there will be very few. It would be sad
for mankind if at any time theoretical speculation became the only source of
guidance for society, if science alone were in charge of all social administration.
Life would wither, and human society would turn into a voiceless and servile
herd. The domination o f life by science can have no other result than the
brutalization of mankind.
We, the revolutionary anarchists, are the advocates of education for all the
people, of the emancipation and the widest possible expansion of social life.
Therefore we are the enemies of the State and all forms of the statist principle.
In opposition to the metaphysicians, the positivists, and all the worshippers
of science, we declare that natural and social life always comes before theory,
which is only one of its manifestations but never its creator. From out of its
own inexhaustible depths, society develops through a series of events, but not
by thought alone. Theory is always created by life, but never creates it; like
mile-postsandroadsigns,itonlyindicatesthedirectionandthedifferentstages
of life’s independent and unique development.
In accordance with this belief, we neither intend nor desire to thrust upon
ourownoranyotherpeopleanyschemeofsocialorganizationtakenfrombooks
orconcoctedbyourselves. Weareconvincedthatthemassesofthepeoplecarry
inthemselves,intheirinstincts(moreorlessdevelopedbyhistory),intheirdaily
necessities, and. in their conscious or unconscious aspirations, all the elements
of the future social organization. We seek this ideal in the people themselves.
Every state power, every government, by its very nature places itself outside
and over the people and inevitably subordinates them to an organization and
to aims which are foreign to and opposed to the real needs and aspirations of
the people. We declare ourselves the enemies of every government and every
statepower,andofgovernmentalorganizationingeneral. Wethinkthatpeople
can be free and happy only when organized from the bottom up in completely
free and independent associations, without governmental paternalism though
not without the influence of a variety of free individuals and parties.
Such are our ideas as social revolutionaries, and we are therefore called
anarchists. We do not protest this name, for we are indeed the enemies of any
4
governmentalpower, sinceweknowthatsuchapowerdepravesthosewhowear
itsmantleequallywiththosewhoareforcedtosubmittoit. Underitspernicious
influencetheformerbecomeambitiousandgreedydespots,exploitersofsociety
in favor of their personal or class interests, while the latter become slaves.
Idealists of all kinds — metaphysicians, positivists, those who support the
rule of science over life, doctrinaire revolutionists — all defend the idea of state
and state power with equal eloquence, because they see in it, as a consequence
of their own systems, the only salvation for society. Quite logically, since they
have accepted the basic premise (which we consider completely mistaken) that
thought precedes life, that theory is prior to social experience, and, therefore,
that social science has to be the starting point for all social upheavals and
reconstructions. They then arrive unavoidably at the conclusion that because
thought, theory, and science, at least in our times, are in the possession of very
few, these few ought to be the leaders of social life, not only the initiators, but
also the leaders of all popular movements. On the day following the revolution
the new social order should not be organized by the free association of people’s
organizations or unions, local and regional, from the bottom up, in accordance
withthedemandsandinstinctsofthepeople, butonlybythedictatorialpower
of this learned minority, which presumes to express the will of the people.
Thisfictionofapseudo-representativegovernmentservestoconcealthedom-
ination of the masses by a handful of privileged elite; an elite elected by hordes
ofpeoplewhoareroundedupanddonotknowforwhomorforwhattheyvote.
Upon this artificial and abstract expression of what they falsely imagine to be
the will of the people and of which the real living people have not the least
idea,theyconstructboththetheoryofstatismaswellasthetheoryofso-called
revolutionary dictatorship.
The differences between revolutionary dictatorship and statism are super-
ficial. Fundamentally they both represent the same principle of minority rule
over the majority in the name of the alleged “stupidity” of the latter and the
alleged“intelligence”oftheformer. Thereforetheyarebothequallyreactionary
since both directly and inevitably must preserve and perpetuate the political
and economic privileges of the ruling minority and the political and economic
subjugation of the masses of the people.
Now it is clear why the dictatorial revolutionists, who aim to overthrow
the existing powers and social structures in order to erect upon their ruins
their own dictatorships, never were or will be the enemies of government, but,
to the contrary, always will be the most ardent promoters of the government
idea. They are the enemies only of contemporary governments, because they
wish to replace them. They are the enemies of the present governmental struc-
ture, because it excludes the possibility of their dictatorship. At the same time
they are the most devoted friends of governmental power. For if the revolu-
tion destroyed this power by actually freeing the masses, it would deprive this
pseudo-revolutionary minority of any hope to harness the masses in order to
make them the beneficiaries of their own government policy.
We have already expressed several times our deep aversion to the theory of
Lassalle and Marx, which recommends to the workers, if not as a final ideal
at least as the next immediate goal, the founding of a people’s state, which
according to their interpretation will be nothing but “the proletariat elevated
to the status of the governing class.”
Letusask,iftheproletariatistobetherulingclass,overwhomisittorule?
5
Inshort,therewillremainanotherproletariatwhichwillbesubduedtothisnew
rule, to this new state. For instance, the peasant “rabble” who, as it is known,
doesnotenjoythesympathyoftheMarxistswhoconsiderittorepresentalower
level of culture, will probably be ruled by the factory proletariat of the cities.
Or,ifthisproblemistobeapproachednationalistically,theSlavswillbeplaced
in the same subordinate relationship to the victorious German proletariat in
which the latter now stands to the German bourgeoisie.
If there is a State, there must be domination of one class by another and,
as a result, slavery; the State without slavery is unthinkable — and this is why
we are the enemies of the State.
What does it mean that the proletariat will be elevated to a ruling class?
Is it possible for the whole proletariat to stand at the head of the government?
There are nearly forty million Germans. Can all forty million be members of
the government? In such a case, there will be no government, no state, but, if
thereistobeastatetherewillbethosewhoareruledandthosewhoareslaves.
The Marxist theory solves this dilemma very simply. By the people’s rule,
they mean the rule of a small number of representatives elected by the people.
The general, and every man’s, right to elect the representatives of the people
and the rulers of the State is the latest word of the Marxists, as well as of
the democrats. This is a lie, behind which lurks the despotism of the ruling
minority, alieallthemoredangerousinthatitappearstoexpresstheso-called
will of the people.
Ultimately, from whatever point of view we look at this question, we come
alwaystothesamesadconclusion,theruleofthegreatmassesofthepeoplebya
privilegedminority. TheMarxistssaythatthisminoritywillconsistofworkers.
Yes, possibly of former workers, who, as soon as they become the rulers of the
representatives of the people, will cease to be workers and will look down at
the plain working masses from the governing heights of the State; they will no
longer represent the people, but only themselves and their claims to rulership
over the people. Those who doubt this know very little about human nature.
Theseelectedrepresentatives,saytheMarxists,willbededicatedandlearned
socialists. The expressions “learned socialist,” “scientific socialism,” etc., which
continuously appear in the speeches and writings of the followers of Lassalle
and Marx, prove that the pseudo-People’s State will be nothing but a despotic
control of the populace by a new and not at all numerous aristocracy of real
and pseudo-scientists. The “uneducated” people will be totally relieved of the
cares of administration, and will be treated as a regimented herd. A beautiful
liberation, indeed!
The Marxists are aware of this contradiction and realize that a government
of scientists will be a real dictatorship regardless of its democratic form. They
consolethemselveswiththeideathatthisrulewillbetemporary. Theysaythat
the only care and objective will be to educate and elevate the people economi-
cally and politically to such a degree that such a government will soon become
unnecessary, and the State, after losing its political or coercive character, will
automatically develop into a completely free organization of economic interests
and communes.
Thereisaflagrantcontradictioninthistheory. Iftheirstatewouldbereally
of the people, why eliminate it? And if the State is needed to emancipate the
workers, then the workers are not yet free, so why call it a People’s State?
By our polemic against them we have brought them to the realization that
6
freedom or anarchism, which means a free organization of the working masses
fromthebottomup, is the final objective ofsocialdevelopment, andthatevery
state, not excepting their People’s State, is a yoke, on the one hand giving
rise to despotism and on the other to slavery. They say that such a yoke —
dictatorshipisatransitionalsteptowardsachievingfullfreedomforthepeople:
anarchismorfreedomistheaim, whilestateanddictatorshipisthemeans, and
so, in order to free the masses of people, they have first to be enslaved!
Uponthiscontradictionourpolemichascometoahalt. Theyinsistthatonly
dictatorship (of course their own) can create freedom for the people. We reply
that all dictatorship has no objective other than self-perpetuation, and that
slavery is all it can generate and instill in the people who suffer it. Freedom
can be created only by freedom, by a total rebellion of the people, and by a
voluntary organization of the people from the bottom up.
Thesocialtheoryoftheanti-statesocialistsoranarchistsleadsthemdirectly
and inevitably towards a break with all forms of the State, with all varieties of
bourgeois politics, and leaves no choice except a social revolution. The oppo-
site theory, state communism and the authority of the scientists, attracts and
confuses its followers and, under the pretext of political tactics, makes contin-
uous deals with the governments and various bourgeois political parties, and is
directly pushed towards reaction.
The cardinal point of this program is that the State alone is to liberate
the (pseudo-) proletariat. To achieve this, the State must agree to liberate the
proletariat from the oppression of bourgeois capitalism. How is it possible to
impart such a will to the State? The proletariat must take possession of the
State by a revolution — an heroic undertaking. But once the proletariat seizes
theState,itmustmoveatoncetoabolishimmediatelythiseternalprisonofthe
people. But according to Mr. Marx, the people not only should not abolish the
State, but, on the contrary, they must strengthen and enlarge it. and turn it
over to the full disposition of their benefactors, guardians, and teachers — the
leadersoftheCommunistparty, meaningMr. Marxandhisfriends—whowill
then liberate them in their own way. They will concentrate all administrative
power in their own strong hands, because the ignorant people are in need of a
strong guardianship; and they will create a central state bank, which will also
control all the commerce, industry, agriculture, and even science. The mass of
the people will be divided into two armies, the agricultural and the industrial,
under the direct command of the state engineers, who will constitute the new
privileged political-scientific class.
Some Preconditions for a Social Revolution
The propaganda and organization of the International is directed exclusively
to the working class, which in Italy, as in the rest of Europe, embodies all the
life, power, and aspirations of the future society. The International attracted
only a handful of adherents from the bourgeois world who, having learned to
passionately hate the existing social order and all its false values, renounced
their class and dedicated themselves body and soul to the cause of the people.
If they can root out the last vestiges of subjective loyalty to the bourgeois
world, and those of personal vanity, these men, though few in number, could
renderpricelessservicestotherevolutionarymovement. Theydrawtheirinspi-
7
ration from the movement of the people. But in exchange they can contribute
expert knowledge, the capacity for abstract thought and generalization, and
the ability to organize and coordinate — qualities which constitute the creative
force without which any victory is impossible. In Italy and Russia there are
more such young men than there are in other countries. But what is a much
more important asset for the Revolution is that there is in Italy an enormous
proletariat,unusuallyintelligentbynaturebutveryoftenlackingeducationand
living in great poverty. This proletariat comprises two or three million urban
workers, mainly in factories and small workshops, and approximately twenty
milliontotallydeprivedpeasants. Thishugeclasshasbeenreducedtosuchdes-
peration that even the defenders of this terrible society are beginning to speak
out openly in parliament and in the official press, admitting that things have
reached the breaking point, and that something must immediately be done to
avoid a popular holocaust which will destroy everything in its path.
Nowhere are there more favorable conditions for the Social Revolution than
in Italy. There does not exist in Italy, as in most other European nations, a
specialcategoryofrelativelyaffluentworkers,earninghigherwages,boastingof
theirliterarycapacities,andsoimpregnatedbyavarietyofbourgeoisprejudices
that, excepting income, they differ in no way from the bourgeoisie. This class
of bourgeois workers is numerous in Germany and in Switzerland; but in Italy,
on the contrary, they arc insignificant in number and influence, a mere drop
in the ocean. In Italy it is the extremely poor proletariat that predominates.
Marx speaks disdainfully, but quite unjustly, of this Lumpenproletariat. For in
them, and only in them, and not in the bourgeois strata of workers, are there
crystallized the entire intelligence and power of the coming Social Revolution.
A popular insurrection, by its very nature, is instinctive, chaotic, and de-
structive, and always entails great personal sacrifice and an enormous loss of
public and private property. The masses are always ready to sacrifice them-
selves; and this is what turns them into a brutal and savage horde, capable of
performing heroic and apparently impossible exploits, and since they possess
little or nothing, they are not demoralized by the responsibilities of property
ownership. And in moments of crisis, for the sake of self-defense or victory,
they will not hesitate to burn down their own houses and neighborhoods, and
propertybeingnodeterrent, sinceitbelongstotheiroppressors, theydevelopa
passion for destruction. This negative passion, it is true, is far from being suffi-
cienttoattaintheheightsoftherevolutionarycause; butwithoutit, revolution
wouldbeimpossible. Revolutionrequiresextensiveandwidespreaddestruction,
a fecund and renovating destruction, since in this way and only this way are
new worlds born...
Not even the most terrible misery affecting millions of workers is in itself
enough to spur them to revolution. Man is by nature endowed (or cursed)
by marvelous patience, and only the devil knows how he can patiently endure
unimaginable misery and even slow death by starvation; and even the impulse
to give way to despair is smothered by a complete insensibility toward his own
rights, and an imperturbable obedience...
Peopleinthisconditionarehopeless. Theywouldratherdiethanrebel. But
whenamancanbedriventodesperation,heisthenmorelikelytorebel. Despair
is a bitter, passionate feeling capable of rousing men from their semiconscious
resignation if they already have an idea of a more desirable situation, even
without much hope of achieving it. But it is impossible to remain too long in
8
a state of absolute despair: one must give in, die, or do something about it —
fightforacause,butwhatcause? Obviously,tofreeoneself,tofightforabetter
life...
But poverty and desperation are still not sufficient to generate the Social
Revolution. They may be able to call forth intermittent local rebellions, but
not great and widespread mass uprisings. To do this it is indispensable that
the people be inspired by a universal ideal, historically developed from the
instinctual depths of popular sentiments, amplified and clarified by a series
of significant events and severe and bitter experiences. It is necessary that
the populace have a general idea of their rights and a deep, passionate, quasi-
religious belief in the validity of these rights. When this idea and this popular
faith are joined to the kind of misery that leads to desperation, then the Social
Revolutionisnearandinevitable, andnoforceonearthwillbeabletoresistit.
This is exactly the situation of the Italian proletariat. The sufferings they
are forced to endure are scarcely less terrible than the poverty and misery that
overwhelm the Russian people. But the Italian proletariat is imbued with a
greater degree of passionate revolutionary consciousness than are the Russian
masses,aconsciousnesswhichdailybecomesstrongerandclearer,Bynaturein-
telligentandpassionate,theItalianproletariatisatlastbeginningtounderstand
what it wants and what must be done to achieve its complete emancipation. In
thissensethepropagandaoftheInternational,energeticallyandwidelydiffused
during the last two years, has been of great value. This profound sentiment,
this universal ideal, without which (as we have already said) every mass insur-
rection, however great the sacrifices made, is absolutely impossible, has been
stimulated by the International, which at the same time pointed out the road
to emancipation and the means for the organization of the people’s power.
At first this ideal naturally manifests itself in the passionate desire of the
peopletoputanendtotheirpovertyandmiseryandtosatisfyalltheirmaterial
needsbycollectivelabor,equallyobligatoryforall. Lateritwillcometoinclude
theabolitionofalldomination,andthefreeorganizationofthelifeofthecountry
in accord with the needs of the people. This will mean the rejection of the
State’s form of control from the top in favor of organization from the bottom
up, created by the people themselves, without governments and parliaments.
This would be organization achieved by the free participation of associations,
of the agricultural and industrial workers, of the communes and the provinces.
Ultimately, in the more distant future, it would erect on the ruins of all states
the fraternity of peoples.
ItisworthnotingthatinItaly,asinSpain,theprogramofMarxiststatecom-
munism has had absolutely no effect, while the program of the famous Alliance
of revolutionary socialists [anarchist vanguard organization], which proclaimed
uncompromising war against all domination, all tutelage and governmental au-
thority, was overwhelmingly and enthusiastically accepted by the workers.
Apeopleinspiredwithsuchideascanalwayswinitsownfreedomandground
itsownlifeonthemostamplefreedomforeveryone,whileinnowaythreatening
orinfringingonthefreedomofothernations. ThisiswhyneitherItalynorSpain
will embark on a career of conquest but will, on the contrary, help all peoples
to accomplish their own social revolutions...
Moderncapitalistproductionandbankspeculationinexorablydemandenor-
mous centralization of the State, which alone can subject millions of workers
to capitalist exploitation. Federalist organization from the bottom upward, of
9
workers’ associations, groups, communes, cantons [counties], regions, and fi-
nally whole peoples, is the sole condition for true, non-fictitious freedom, but
such freedom violates the interests and convictions of the ruling classes, just
as economic self-determination is incompatible with their methods of organi-
zation. Representative democracy, however, harmonizes marvelously with the
capitalisteconomicsystem. Thisnewstatistsystem,basingitselfonthealleged
sovereignty of the so-called will of the people, as supposedly expressed by their
allegedrepresentativesinmockpopularassemblies,incorporatesthetwoprinci-
palandnecessaryconditionsfortheprogressofcapitalism: statecentralization,
and the actual submission of the sovereign people to the intellectual governing
minority,who,whileclaimingtorepresentthepeople,unfailinglyexploitsthem.
The exploitation of human labor cannot be sugar-coated even by the most
democratic form of government ...for the worker it will always be a bitter pill.
Itfollowsfromthisthatnogovernment, howeverpaternalistic, howeverbenton
avoidingfriction,willtolerateanythreattoitsexploitativeeconomicinstitutions
or its political hegemony: unable to instill habitual obedience to its authority
by cajolery and other peaceful methods, the government will then resort to
unceasingcoercion,toviolence,i.e.,topoliticalcontrol,andtheultimateweapon
of political control is military power.
The modern State is by its very nature a military State; and every military
State must of necessity become a conquering. invasive State; to survive it must
conquerorbeconquered,forthesimplereasonthataccumulatedmilitarypower
will suffocate if it does not find an outlet. Therefore the modern State must
strive to be a huge and powerful State: this is the indispensable precondition
for its survival.
And just as capitalist production must, to avoid bankruptcy, continually
expand by absorbing its weaker competitors and drive to monopolize all the
other capitalist enterprises all over the world, so must the modern State in-
evitably drive to become the only universal State, since the coexistence of two
universalstatesisbydefinitionabsolutelyimpossible. Sovereignty,thedriveto-
ward absolute domination, is inherent in every State; and the first prerequisite
for this sovereignty is the comparative weakness, or at least the submission of
neighboring states...
AstrongStatecanhaveonlyonesolidfoundation: militaryandbureaucratic
centralization. The fundamental difference between a monarchy and even the
most democratic republic is that in the monarchy. the bureaucrats oppress and
rob the people for the benefit of the privileged in the name of the King, and to
fill their own coffers; while in the republic the people are robbed and oppressed
in the same way for the benefit of the same classes, in the name of “the will
of the people” (and to fill the coffers of the democratic bureaucrats). In the
republic the State, which is supposed to be the people, legally organized, stifles
and will continue to stifle the real people. But the people will feel no better if
the stick with which they are being beaten is labeled “the people’s stick.”
...No state, however democratic — not even the reddest republic — can
ever give the people what they really want, i.e., the free self-organization and
administration of their own affairs from the bottom upward, without any inter-
ference or violence from above, because every state, even the pseudo-People’s
State concocted by Mr. Marx, is in essence only a machine ruling the masses
from above, through a privileged minority of conceited intellectuals, who imag-
ine that they know what the people need and want better than do the people
10